1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://we.phorge.it/source/phorge.git synced 2024-12-18 19:40:55 +01:00
Commit graph

10 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
epriestley
ba6cb62b49 Remove mailing lists application
Summary: Ref T8387. This is now completely obsoleted by mailing list users.

Test Plan: Grepped for `mailinglist` and related symbols.

Reviewers: btrahan

Reviewed By: btrahan

Subscribers: eadler, epriestley

Maniphest Tasks: T8387

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13129
2015-06-03 18:42:36 -07:00
epriestley
c0e26c65e0 Make mail delivery reasons code-based; include positive and negative reasons
Summary:
Ref T7731. Looking forward to T5791, I eventually anticipate writing an interface which looks like a webmail UI where users can review mail they've been sent and understand why they recieved (or did not receive) the mail. Roughly like `bin/mail list-outbound` / `bin/mail show-outbound` work today, but policy-aware (so you can only see messages where delivery was attempted to you).

We currently record a list of "reasons" why a mail is undeliverable, but this list is string-based (so it can not be translated once we start persisting it) and has only negative reasons (so it can not be used to fully understand reasons for delivery or nondelivery).

Make it code-based (so it can be translated) and allow both positive and negative reasons to be listed (so positive reasons can be understood).

Test Plan: Used `bin/mail show-outbound` to review mail delivery reasons, including the positive reason we currently have (forced delivery of authentication mail).

Reviewers: btrahan

Reviewed By: btrahan

Subscribers: epriestley

Maniphest Tasks: T7731

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12297
2015-04-06 10:01:11 -07:00
Joshua Spence
97a8700e45 Rename PHIDType classes
Summary: Ref T5655. Rename `PhabricatorPHIDType` subclasses for clarity (see discussion in D9839). I'm not too keen on some of the resulting class names, so feel free to suggest alternatives.

Test Plan: Ran unit tests.

Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers

Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers

Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que

Maniphest Tasks: T5655

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9986
2014-07-24 08:05:46 +10:00
lkassianik
dfcccd4cb8 Add config to require real name, respect config when creating new users, drop real name from full name if not provided.
Summary: Fixes T4728, first pass, Make real name optional on user accounts

Test Plan: Default real name config should be false (not required). Create new user, real name should not be required. Toggle config, real name should be required. Users with no real name should be always listed by their usernames.

Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley

Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley

Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin

Maniphest Tasks: T4728

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9027
2014-05-12 09:51:41 -07:00
epriestley
7f11e8d740 Improve handling of email verification and "activated" accounts
Summary:
Small step forward which improves existing stuff or lays groudwork for future stuff:

  - Currently, to check for email verification, we have to single-query the email address on every page. Instead, denoramlize it into the user object.
    - Migrate all the existing users.
    - When the user verifies an email, mark them as `isEmailVerified` if the email is their primary email.
    - Just make the checks look at the `isEmailVerified` field.
  - Add a new check, `isUserActivated()`, to cover email-verified plus disabled. Currently, a non-verified-but-not-disabled user could theoretically use Conduit over SSH, if anyone deployed it. Tighten that up.
  - Add an `isApproved` flag, which is always true for now. In a future diff, I want to add a default-on admin approval queue for new accounts, to prevent configuration mistakes. The way it will work is:
    - When the queue is enabled, registering users are created with `isApproved = false`.
    - Admins are sent an email, "[Phabricator] New User Approval (alincoln)", telling them that a new user is waiting for approval.
    - They go to the web UI and approve the user.
    - Manually-created accounts are auto-approved.
    - The email will have instructions for disabling the queue.

I think this queue will be helpful for new installs and give them peace of mind, and when you go to disable it we have a better opportunity to warn you about exactly what that means.

Generally, I want to improve the default safety of registration, since if you just blindly coast through the path of least resistance right now your install ends up pretty open, and realistically few installs are on VPNs.

Test Plan:
  - Ran migration, verified `isEmailVerified` populated correctly.
  - Created a new user, checked DB for verified (not verified).
  - Verified, checked DB (now verified).
  - Used Conduit, People, Diffusion.

Reviewers: btrahan

Reviewed By: btrahan

CC: chad, aran

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7572
2013-11-12 14:37:04 -08:00
Bob Trahan
1cb0db8755 Move PhabricatorUser to new phid stuff
Summary: Ref T2715. Had to start loading status information in the query class. Debated trying to clean up some of the attach / load stuff but decided to just add status under the new paradigm for now.

Test Plan: phid.query  also made a status and checked that out. also played in conpherence.

Reviewers: epriestley

Reviewed By: epriestley

CC: aran, Korvin

Maniphest Tasks: T2715

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6585
2013-07-26 14:05:19 -07:00
epriestley
db3a0c90bb Use Application PHIDs for XUSR
Summary: Ref T2715. XUSR -> apps

Test Plan: `phid.query`

Reviewers: btrahan

Reviewed By: btrahan

CC: aran

Maniphest Tasks: T2715

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6558
2013-07-24 14:12:39 -07:00
epriestley
c5a06a624a Use application PHIDs for mailing lists
Summary:
Ref T2715. Ref T603. Ref T2625.

  - Implement policies.
  - Use policy queries.
  - Use ApplicationSearch.
  - Use application PHIDs.

Test Plan: Browsed things with lists CC'd; edited lists; created a list, used `phid.query` to query handles.

Reviewers: btrahan

Reviewed By: btrahan

CC: aran

Maniphest Tasks: T603, T2625, T2715

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6513
2013-07-22 12:17:33 -07:00
epriestley
544a84ebb9 Move outbound mail lists to CLI and enhance details
Summary: Finish off moving all this stuff to the CLI. Ref T3306.

Test Plan:
  PROPERTIES
  ID: 6483
  Status: void
  Retry Count: 0
  Next Retry: 1373494457
  Related PHID: PHID-DREV-5bnb33yeuhuaulyc3exg
  Message: Message has no valid recipients: all To/Cc are disabled, invalid, or configured not to receive this mail.

  PARAMETERS
  from: PHID-USER-lqiz3yd7wmk64ejugvov
  is-html:
  parent-message-id: null
  thread-id: differential-rev-PHID-DREV-5bnb33yeuhuaulyc3exg-req
  is-first-message: null
  is-bulk: 1
  mailtags: ["differential-comment"]
  cc: ["PHID-USER-cluwcdowc35gmperlkbi"]
  subject: D22: quack quack
  subject-prefix: [Differential]
  vary-subject-prefix: [Commented On]
  worker-task: 936546

  HEADERS
  Thread-Topic: D22: quack quack
  X-Herald-Rules: none
  X-Differential-Author: <PHID-USER-lqiz3yd7wmk64ejugvov>
  X-Differential-CC: <PHID-USER-ly3pvrtdkw7lbgs72jvr>
  X-Differential-CC: <PHID-USER-cluwcdowc35gmperlkbi>
  X-Differential-CC: <PHID-MLST-wkxaantg3q6pgdkty5pt>
  X-Differential-CC: <PHID-USER-aeabc4ipqbifny3rw4ok>
  X-Differential-CC: <PHID-USER-zqxtb3oi4pouwxnxlv3f>
  X-Differential-CC: <PHID-USER-cknqtm2dzw7twnwyiaye>
  X-Differential-CCs: <PHID-USER-ly3pvrtdkw7lbgs72jvr>, <PHID-USER-cluwcdowc35gmperlkbi>, <PHID-MLST-wkxaantg3q6pgdkty5pt>, <PHID-USER-aeabc4ipqbifny3rw4ok>, <PHID-USER-zqxtb3oi4pouwxnxlv3f>, <PHID-USER-cknqtm2dzw7twnwyiaye>
  X-Differential-Explicit-CC: <PHID-USER-ly3pvrtdkw7lbgs72jvr>
  X-Differential-Explicit-CC: <PHID-USER-cluwcdowc35gmperlkbi>
  X-Differential-Explicit-CC: <PHID-MLST-wkxaantg3q6pgdkty5pt>
  X-Differential-Explicit-CC: <PHID-USER-aeabc4ipqbifny3rw4ok>
  X-Differential-Explicit-CC: <PHID-USER-zqxtb3oi4pouwxnxlv3f>
  X-Differential-Explicit-CC: <PHID-USER-cknqtm2dzw7twnwyiaye>
  X-Differential-Explicit-CCs: <PHID-USER-ly3pvrtdkw7lbgs72jvr>, <PHID-USER-cluwcdowc35gmperlkbi>, <PHID-MLST-wkxaantg3q6pgdkty5pt>, <PHID-USER-aeabc4ipqbifny3rw4ok>, <PHID-USER-zqxtb3oi4pouwxnxlv3f>, <PHID-USER-cknqtm2dzw7twnwyiaye>
  X-Phabricator-To: <PHID-USER-lqiz3yd7wmk64ejugvov>
  X-Phabricator-Cc: <PHID-USER-ly3pvrtdkw7lbgs72jvr>
  X-Phabricator-Cc: <PHID-USER-cluwcdowc35gmperlkbi>
  X-Phabricator-Cc: <PHID-MLST-wkxaantg3q6pgdkty5pt>
  X-Phabricator-Cc: <PHID-USER-aeabc4ipqbifny3rw4ok>
  X-Phabricator-Cc: <PHID-USER-zqxtb3oi4pouwxnxlv3f>
  X-Phabricator-Cc: <PHID-USER-cknqtm2dzw7twnwyiaye>

  RECIPIENTS
  ! dog (dog)
      - This user is disabled; disabled users do not receive mail.

  BODY
  epriestley has commented on the revision "quack quack".

    zxcbzxcb

  REVISION DETAIL
    http://local.aphront.com:8080/D22

  To: epriestley
  Cc: Unknown User, dog, list, duck, epriestley992, asana

Reviewers: btrahan

Reviewed By: btrahan

CC: aran

Maniphest Tasks: T3306

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6423
2013-07-10 18:52:22 -07:00
epriestley
293a475e39 Show why recipients were excluded from mail
Summary:
Ref T3306. This interface has a hard time balancing security/policy issues and I'm not sure what the best way forward is. Some possibilities:

  # We just let you see everything from the web UI.
    - This makes debugging easier.
    - Anyone who can see this stuff can trivially take over any user's account with five seconds of work and no technical expertise (reset their password from the web UI, then go read the email and click the link).
  # We let you see everything, but only for messages you were a recipient of or author of.
    - This makes it much more difficult to debug issues with mailing lists.
      - But maybe we could just say mailing list recipients are "public", or define some other ruleset.
    - Generally this gets privacy and ease of use right.
  # We could move the whole thing to the CLI.
    - Makes the UI/UX way worse.
  # We could strike an awkward balance between concerns, as we do now.
    - We expose //who// sent and received messages, but not the content of the messages. This doesn't feel great.

I'm inclined to probably go with (2) and figure something out for mailing lists?

Anyway, irrespective of that this should generally make things more clear, and improves the code a lot if nothing else.

Test Plan:
{F49546}

  - Looked at a bunch of mail.
  - Sent mail from different apps.
  - Checked that recipients seem correct.

Reviewers: btrahan, chad

Reviewed By: btrahan

CC: aran

Maniphest Tasks: T3306

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6413
2013-07-10 15:17:38 -07:00